Ultimately weight loss is not about how much you eat or how much you exercise. What you need is a negative energy input, on in plain English: You must burn off more calories than you take in.
The reason this works for some and not for others may well be the fact that people naturally increase their energy input (eat more) when their energy output (exercise) increases.
But regardless of if you loose weight or not, any activity causing your pulse to rise will make you more fit. Which is a good thing.
I realize my choice of words was far from optimal, I guess that's what you get when you post in a hurry.
I do believe that intelligence affects the motivation to solve problems or care about them in the first place. That being said, the whole intelligence claim should probably have been left out of my comment.
People are not stupid. They just don't fucking care. Most people have a life that exists beyond their monitor. As long as they can check their email and go to the few sites they frequent, THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT THEY ARE USING. They don't give a fuck about standards, they don't give a fuck about MS being 'evil', they don't give a fuck about any of this stupid fucking bullshit you moronic fucking geek.
This is true, but your assumption that I am a moronic fucking geek is invalid.
If people are too stupid to install shit, then how the fuck do you think Flash got so popular? Hey, that's right! When they go to a site that uses it and they don't have it, THEY FUCKING INSTALL IT.
Some do, some dont. But the popularity of Flash was largely fueled by two factors: It came pre-installed in the browser with most ISP installer CD's, and the early Flash players were a very small download (downloading it was wicked fast.)
Since you're too damn biased to notice, IE isn't the only non-standards compliant browser out there. In fact, I'm not sure there is a SINGLE browser that is fully standards compliant.
You completely and totally missed my point. I'm not after a fully standards compliant browser, nor am I saying we should all make standards compiant web sites.
My point was: the fact that IE isn't being developed causes a situation where progress in the web development world has largely stalled.
But you're right about there not being any standards compiant browsers out there at the moment. I suspect there never will be a browser which implements even just HTML and CSS2 without any quirks.
As a sidenote I'd like to point out that your rather liberal use of the word 'fuck' might be considered offensive by some.
It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.
Web standards aren't just about writing valid markup. IE forces you to do workarounds which result in code which is bad practice from a semantic viewpoint.
Another problem is the fact that due to IE's limitations making things work takes orders of magnitude longer than it otherwise would.
SVG isn't supported in the normal builds of Mozilla, Konquerer, Safari or Opera, so you can't really blame Microsoft for not supporting it either.
If IE supported SVG we'd have a 90% installed used base for SVG support. I'll bet anyone a million bucks that SVG would have catched on by now if IE had supported it for a couple of years.
And it IE supported SVG I'd bet would be of higher priority for other browsers too.
Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?
If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.
Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.
The average person is not that intelligent. I'm not saying the average person is stupid, but never the less. It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.
Furthermore, many people browse at public libraries or similar places where installing software isn't an option.
Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.
If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.
As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)
Microsoft business practices aside, I really, really hate the fact that IE development is at a standstill. Microsoft has said they won't release a new IE until Longhorn.
Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.
Amusingly there's a work-around under development called IE7, mentioned on Slashdot a while back.
But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.
I wonder if one could make a rusty case with real rust in a controlled fashion. Got me thinking:
First you get an aluminum case. Then you iron plate it electrolytically (can this be done with iron?) Next you give the case a nice salt water bath and let it dry in a damp environment. Repeat.
Would it work? Toughts?
Re:Joe vs. vi vs. GUI based editors
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Unless we are all sitting at green Wyse 50 terminals, why are we still so married to command line editors?
Personally I like the fact that I can just download Putty and SSH into a familiar environment. Special purpose GUI editors are usually great for a given task, but nothing beats a properly configured general purpose text-based editor at random editing tasks.
What are we supposed to do about it anyway? Put a clause in the license to say only good people can use it?
Actually (as you pointed out,) one of the core concepts of the GPL is that you can't enforce such restrictions and have a GPL compatible license. By definition, how can you restrict something which is supposed to be free, as in freedom?
The major problem with things like this is the fact that the belief held by the majority/ones in power isn't always the right one. Usually there is no black and white right or wrong. In fact, enforcing your beliefs upon others is (in my opinion) often, but not always, worse than a live and let live style attitude towards stuff you don't understand.
PS. I'm totally not supportive of the war in Iraq, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, now can you?
GHz IMO is at least a little more honest when it comes to Intel Processors because the IPC (instructions per clock) shouldnt change all that much from a 2.0GHz CPU to a 2.2 GHz CPU, whereas the instructions per clock on a 2600+ CPU can be drastically different from that of a 2700+ (in fact, it can be a whole different core).
And therein lies the major problem with GHz-based speed comparisons. As long as you're dealing with the same core (which is not the same as processor name i.e. "Pentium 4",) the speed will scale rather linearily with core speed (ignoring bus speeds etc.)
But you simply can't compare an N-GHz processor with core X to an N-GHz processor with core Y. The problem is, there really is no objective measurement system, as of yet, anyway.
All don't. It's a marchitecture thing, Intel wanted high frequencies no matter what. As a result we have processors which do less work per clock cycle, huge pipelines and high power consumption.
All x86 processors don't have this issue. Via's C3 is miles away from Intel's Pentium 4. AMD is also somewhat better than Intel, and Intel's own Banias (Pentium M) is also rather low power.
The problem is, Intel's been brainwashing the public that YOU WANT A COMPUTER WITH MANY MANY GIGAHERTZ for so long now that the're more or less stuck with high power consumption until they have time to create a whole new architecture.
You really shouldn't confuse your Masses with your Weights, not when you're putting other people down..
Granted, physics is not a strong point of mine;)
Besides, Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?
A density is to a mass what a resolution is to a megapixel, given certain dimensions. An N-megapixel image will end at at a certain DPI when displayed at given dimensions.
Pixels-per-inch is pretty analogous to weight/mass (which?) per cubic inch, which is what a density essentially is, right?
Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever. Quick, what resolution does 3 megapixel equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so.
Weight is the most idiotic dimension measurement system ever. Quick, what dimensions do 3 kg equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE IRON SLAB HAS DIMESIONS OF 10x3x7 cm, just fucking say so.
My point being: Absolute resolution is one thing, but megapixels are quite useful for a quick quality approximation. Just as you know that a 20 kg backpack will be a hell of a lot more back-breaking than a 5 kg one, megapixels can give you an idea of what to expect from a camera.
I'm not saying megapixels tell you everything, though.
Well, Hawking has a muscle disorder. Exactly what is involved in ALS is beyond me, whether it's just the muscles or if it's a problem with the nerves getting the signals to the muscles. If the problem is the formor, it may save him a lot of typing. If it's the latter, it would be of no use.
ALS affects the motor neurons themselves, resulting in the signals never reaching the muscles. Oversimplified it's much like a an electric motor with a broken wire: the motor might be fine, but it gets no electricity and subsequently does nothing. ALS is the same, but human muscles also suffer serious deteriouration when not being used.
In any case this technology it would be of no use, as the muscles are fine, but the nerves aren't.
I haven't proofread anything for PG so I have no idea what proofreaders have or have not agreed to. Ultimately there is probably little that can be done if the lisencing scheme makes this possible.
Then again, if the information is available in plain text, I feel it would be OK to charge people for typeset versions of these works. I'm not sure if this is the actual case though, anyone more informed around?
As annoying as ads may be, I'd rather have a site with heavy full motion ads and quality content than no ads and poor content.
After all, content producers need to get paid, and ads are among the few ways to achieve that without subscription services. As long as there are no feasible ways to internationally pay for content safely I'll put up with ads rather than loose the information I can get completely.
Sounds like someone might get disqualified just the project-manager doesn't like their opinions.
A project manager who would disqualify a potential candidate based on the candidate's personal opinions is not the kind of project manager worth working for.
Just because someone is [insert favorite offensive/questionable attribute] that doesn't mean thet the person can't be a great developer.
I got a 700mhz slot Athlon and a top-of-the-line Abit board with VIA chipset. I then proceeded to fight with my system for two weeks. I could not make it work in either 98 or 2000. It just would not play nice with my GeForce or my pro audio card.
I still have a 700mhz Slot-A Athlon with a Via-based motherboard... which won't play nice with my M-Audio Delta 1010. MIDI in stops responding after a while.
So, what was your problem? The Wife Acceptance Factor of an upgrade hasn't quite been met yet...
FireFox lacks the wonderful Mozilla ability to simply type text into the URL bar, hit the up key and then enter, and run a Google search. I find the separate Google search field an annoying complication of Mozilla's search ability.
Actually, typing directly into the Address bar does an I'm feelin lucky -search, which I've found darn convenient. Granted, the search box uses space, but usually so little it's not a problem. The ability to add alternate searches to the search box is great as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd still say the Firefox aproach has it's benefits.
There's not much one can do about stuff like this. The media wants a story, they'll be happy to distort reality in order to get one.
The most important thing is to let people know we don't approve of the actions taken by creators of these viree. Not by shouting about it, but telling people, calmly, whenever given the chance. Tell your neighbour's dog walker if he/she will listen.
Fortunately popular belief does not rule (most) legal systems.
Isn't it great? One of the best things with free software is that anyone is free to maintain and support it for as long as they wish. Compare to say, NT 4.0, which is perfectly capable for some tasks, but users are forced to switch because MS cuts support (read: no more security updates.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately weight loss is not about how much you eat or how much you exercise. What you need is a negative energy input, on in plain English: You must burn off more calories than you take in.
The reason this works for some and not for others may well be the fact that people naturally increase their energy input (eat more) when their energy output (exercise) increases.
But regardless of if you loose weight or not, any activity causing your pulse to rise will make you more fit. Which is a good thing.
I realize my choice of words was far from optimal, I guess that's what you get when you post in a hurry.
I do believe that intelligence affects the motivation to solve problems or care about them in the first place. That being said, the whole intelligence claim should probably have been left out of my comment.
People are not stupid. They just don't fucking care. Most people have a life that exists beyond their monitor. As long as they can check their email and go to the few sites they frequent, THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT THEY ARE USING. They don't give a fuck about standards, they don't give a fuck about MS being 'evil', they don't give a fuck about any of this stupid fucking bullshit you moronic fucking geek.
This is true, but your assumption that I am a moronic fucking geek is invalid.
If people are too stupid to install shit, then how the fuck do you think Flash got so popular? Hey, that's right! When they go to a site that uses it and they don't have it, THEY FUCKING INSTALL IT.
Some do, some dont. But the popularity of Flash was largely fueled by two factors: It came pre-installed in the browser with most ISP installer CD's, and the early Flash players were a very small download (downloading it was wicked fast.)
Since you're too damn biased to notice, IE isn't the only non-standards compliant browser out there. In fact, I'm not sure there is a SINGLE browser that is fully standards compliant.
You completely and totally missed my point. I'm not after a fully standards compliant browser, nor am I saying we should all make standards compiant web sites.
My point was: the fact that IE isn't being developed causes a situation where progress in the web development world has largely stalled.
But you're right about there not being any standards compiant browsers out there at the moment. I suspect there never will be a browser which implements even just HTML and CSS2 without any quirks.
As a sidenote I'd like to point out that your rather liberal use of the word 'fuck' might be considered offensive by some.
It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.
Web standards aren't just about writing valid markup. IE forces you to do workarounds which result in code which is bad practice from a semantic viewpoint.
Another problem is the fact that due to IE's limitations making things work takes orders of magnitude longer than it otherwise would.
SVG isn't supported in the normal builds of Mozilla, Konquerer, Safari or Opera, so you can't really blame Microsoft for not supporting it either.
If IE supported SVG we'd have a 90% installed used base for SVG support. I'll bet anyone a million bucks that SVG would have catched on by now if IE had supported it for a couple of years.
And it IE supported SVG I'd bet would be of higher priority for other browsers too.
Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?
If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.
Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.
The average person is not that intelligent. I'm not saying the average person is stupid, but never the less. It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.
Furthermore, many people browse at public libraries or similar places where installing software isn't an option.
Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.
If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.
As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)
Microsoft business practices aside, I really, really hate the fact that IE development is at a standstill. Microsoft has said they won't release a new IE until Longhorn.
Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.
Amusingly there's a work-around under development called IE7, mentioned on Slashdot a while back.
But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.
I stated using an aluminum case and electrolytically iron plating it. The iron would rust, but the aluminum structure underneath would be just fine.
;)
It would stain though... rust does that
I wonder if one could make a rusty case with real rust in a controlled fashion. Got me thinking:
First you get an aluminum case.
Then you iron plate it electrolytically (can this be done with iron?)
Next you give the case a nice salt water bath and let it dry in a damp environment.
Repeat.
Would it work? Toughts?
Unless we are all sitting at green Wyse 50 terminals, why are we still so married to command line editors?
Personally I like the fact that I can just download Putty and SSH into a familiar environment. Special purpose GUI editors are usually great for a given task, but nothing beats a properly configured general purpose text-based editor at random editing tasks.
What are we supposed to do about it anyway? Put a clause in the license to say only good people can use it?
Actually (as you pointed out,) one of the core concepts of the GPL is that you can't enforce such restrictions and have a GPL compatible license. By definition, how can you restrict something which is supposed to be free, as in freedom?
The major problem with things like this is the fact that the belief held by the majority/ones in power isn't always the right one. Usually there is no black and white right or wrong. In fact, enforcing your beliefs upon others is (in my opinion) often, but not always, worse than a live and let live style attitude towards stuff you don't understand.
PS. I'm totally not supportive of the war in Iraq, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, now can you?
GHz IMO is at least a little more honest when it comes to Intel Processors because the IPC (instructions per clock) shouldnt change all that much from a 2.0GHz CPU to a 2.2 GHz CPU, whereas the instructions per clock on a 2600+ CPU can be drastically different from that of a 2700+ (in fact, it can be a whole different core).
And therein lies the major problem with GHz-based speed comparisons. As long as you're dealing with the same core (which is not the same as processor name i.e. "Pentium 4",) the speed will scale rather linearily with core speed (ignoring bus speeds etc.)
But you simply can't compare an N-GHz processor with core X to an N-GHz processor with core Y. The problem is, there really is no objective measurement system, as of yet, anyway.
Why does x86 processors consume so much power?
All don't. It's a marchitecture thing, Intel wanted high frequencies no matter what. As a result we have processors which do less work per clock cycle, huge pipelines and high power consumption.
All x86 processors don't have this issue. Via's C3 is miles away from Intel's Pentium 4. AMD is also somewhat better than Intel, and Intel's own Banias (Pentium M) is also rather low power.
The problem is, Intel's been brainwashing the public that YOU WANT A COMPUTER WITH MANY MANY GIGAHERTZ for so long now that the're more or less stuck with high power consumption until they have time to create a whole new architecture.
You really shouldn't confuse your Masses with your Weights, not when you're putting other people down..
;)
;)
Granted, physics is not a strong point of mine
Besides,
Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?
A density is to a mass what a resolution is to a megapixel, given certain dimensions. An N-megapixel image will end at at a certain DPI when displayed at given dimensions.
Pixels-per-inch is pretty analogous to weight/mass (which?) per cubic inch, which is what a density essentially is, right?
Alternatively, I got it all wrong?
Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever. Quick, what resolution does 3 megapixel equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so.
Weight is the most idiotic dimension measurement system ever. Quick, what dimensions do 3 kg equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE IRON SLAB HAS DIMESIONS OF 10x3x7 cm, just fucking say so.
My point being: Absolute resolution is one thing, but megapixels are quite useful for a quick quality approximation. Just as you know that a 20 kg backpack will be a hell of a lot more back-breaking than a 5 kg one, megapixels can give you an idea of what to expect from a camera.
I'm not saying megapixels tell you everything, though.
PS. My appologies to the metricly challenged.
Well, Hawking has a muscle disorder. Exactly what is involved in ALS is beyond me, whether it's just the muscles or if it's a problem with the nerves getting the signals to the muscles. If the problem is the formor, it may save him a lot of typing. If it's the latter, it would be of no use.
ALS affects the motor neurons themselves, resulting in the signals never reaching the muscles. Oversimplified it's much like a an electric motor with a broken wire: the motor might be fine, but it gets no electricity and subsequently does nothing. ALS is the same, but human muscles also suffer serious deteriouration when not being used.
In any case this technology it would be of no use, as the muscles are fine, but the nerves aren't.
Thanks for the info :)
Make that license, not lisence...
I haven't proofread anything for PG so I have no idea what proofreaders have or have not agreed to. Ultimately there is probably little that can be done if the lisencing scheme makes this possible.
Then again, if the information is available in plain text, I feel it would be OK to charge people for typeset versions of these works. I'm not sure if this is the actual case though, anyone more informed around?
As annoying as ads may be, I'd rather have a site with heavy full motion ads and quality content than no ads and poor content.
After all, content producers need to get paid, and ads are among the few ways to achieve that without subscription services. As long as there are no feasible ways to internationally pay for content safely I'll put up with ads rather than loose the information I can get completely.
...no discernable market and no clamor for such a technology.
Ask any architect or interior decorator about the possibilities of light sources which can be embedded in ceilings and walls.
There's your market, right there.
Sounds like someone might get disqualified just the project-manager doesn't like their opinions.
A project manager who would disqualify a potential candidate based on the candidate's personal opinions is not the kind of project manager worth working for.
Just because someone is [insert favorite offensive/questionable attribute] that doesn't mean thet the person can't be a great developer.
Then again, sometimes, personal opinion matters.
If you ask me, the more people creating content the better. The web is a collaborate medium after all.
Granted, there's a lot of worthess content out there, but I'd take a truly democratic system over an overly controlled one any day.
Partially off topic, but what the hell....
I got a 700mhz slot Athlon and a top-of-the-line Abit board with VIA chipset. I then proceeded to fight with my system for two weeks. I could not make it work in either 98 or 2000. It just would not play nice with my GeForce or my pro audio card.
I still have a 700mhz Slot-A Athlon with a Via-based motherboard... which won't play nice with my M-Audio Delta 1010. MIDI in stops responding after a while.
So, what was your problem? The Wife Acceptance Factor of an upgrade hasn't quite been met yet...
FireFox lacks the wonderful Mozilla ability to simply type text into the URL bar, hit the up key and then enter, and run a Google search. I find the separate Google search field an annoying complication of Mozilla's search ability.
Actually, typing directly into the Address bar does an I'm feelin lucky -search, which I've found darn convenient. Granted, the search box uses space, but usually so little it's not a problem. The ability to add alternate searches to the search box is great as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd still say the Firefox aproach has it's benefits.
There's not much one can do about stuff like this. The media wants a story, they'll be happy to distort reality in order to get one.
The most important thing is to let people know we don't approve of the actions taken by creators of these viree. Not by shouting about it, but telling people, calmly, whenever given the chance. Tell your neighbour's dog walker if he/she will listen.
Fortunately popular belief does not rule (most) legal systems.
Isn't it great? One of the best things with free software is that anyone is free to maintain and support it for as long as they wish. Compare to say, NT 4.0, which is perfectly capable for some tasks, but users are forced to switch because MS cuts support (read: no more security updates.)